| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Help Conquer Cancer
Thread: HCC Program updated to 6.08 |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 88
|
|
| Author |
|
|
therealjcool
Cruncher Joined: Feb 22, 2008 Post Count: 10 Status: Offline |
Now a WU takes 1.1-1.3 hours. The change between Ubuntu 64bit and Windows W7 64 bit is surprising. You get 2-3 hours on Vista 32 bit with Q8200 2.3 Ghz. I get 1.8 hours on W7 64bit with a 980X at 4Ghz. I have the feeling that the code runs better on the Q8200 than on the 980X. 1.1 - 1.3 sounds excellent. I would have not imagined that a simple change of OS would have such a big impact. By the way is that normal? After all the code running on the CPU is not dependent on the OS. Memory DDR3 is fast enough and should not be an issue. Is WCG sending me WU's that require more work to be tailored with a faster machine, hence the difference? I just checked, and it's true - the closest thing to a Q8200 I have is my Dual X5450 Harpertown @ 3,6Ghz. It's my oldest cruncher, and has been running for some time, on XP x64. Seems to take an average time of 1,6h per HCC WU, even though the chips are clearly superior to a Q8200 (12MB L2, clockspeed, etc). The slowdown with HT enabled is "normal", since you progress twice as many WUs simultaneously. I did a little testing on the matter though, HT enabled gives approx. a 40% boost on i7s vs. HT off. BTW, welcome to XS Hypernova :D How about you stop by in our forums sometime? xtremesystems.org/forums ;) Finally, my congratulations to the researchers for this successful code update!  [Edit 1 times, last edit by therealjcool at Apr 28, 2010 8:04:42 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello Sekerob - WCG Community Advisor
Reference: Your [Apr 18, 2010 8:43:42 AM] post http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/...ad,28759_offset,50#276598 What is the latest state of things surrounding the speed improvements in HCC_v6.08? Are there now some definitives that can be said about the performance of HCC_v6.08 running under various hardware/software combinations? In particular: 1] Does a Linux (Ubuntu or Debian or other distros), on average, yield the best efficiency on a given hardware? 2] Did the code developers optimized their code for the Linux OS? I would like to hear something definitive about target platforms where the code was optimized. It would follow then that the target platform would yield the best efficiency. Good day ; |
||
|
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
andzgrid,
Here are a few things I've noticed on my machine. When running windows, work units take about 2 hours. Running Linux on the same machine (even if it's run in a virtual machine with windows as the base OS) it returns work in about an hour. 1. I don't think there are tests between Linux OS version types. 2. It was not optimized for one OS over another. The main goal was to reduce soft page faults. Which it did very well. -Uplinger |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
andzgrid,
----------------------------------------The summary from my observations on same quad machine: Old version, Vista-32 bit 5.5 hours Old version, Windows 7-64 bit 4.5 hours New version, Windows 7-64 bit 2.5 hours New version, Linux-64 bit [10.04 LTS], 1.2 hours Science overall mean has gone from fairly flattish 5.6 hours to 2.6 hours. By far the fastest on WCG. Some previous observations by other crunchers suggested substantially more gain from old to new. Maybe the techs have time to compare the production share average for an indication per general platform but can't think of it differing much. Given the outrages Integer benchmarks on Linux BOINC 64 bit, this HCC is actually reaping the benefits most of that capability. 
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello WCG
Attention: uplinger - WCG Tech Sekerob - WCG Community Advisor References: uplinger [May 8, 2010 4:33:13 PM] post Sekerob [May 8, 2010 5:11:52 PM] post Greetings: Thank you very much for your responses. Each of the response was clear, concise and with the aid of the graph, I'd say, spendid!  I'm now seriously considering running HCC_v6.08 on a Linux (Ubuntu), preferably on a separate machine. It would be doubly nice if other WCG WUs would also show better efficiency running in Linux compared to running in Windows. Good day ; |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
It would be doubly nice if other WCG WUs would also show better efficiency running in Linux compared to running in Windows. I have a strong feeling that other WCG projects are also going faster under Ubuntu than under Windows.However there are two things (at least) to consider: - the benefit might not be as big as with HCC - it is difficult to make a reliable measurement of this benefit for other projects because, contrary to HCC which has a very stable duration average and a narrow variation, the amount of work to do in WUs of other projects is highly variable. |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Given the outrages Integer benchmarks on Linux BOINC 64 bit, this HCC is actually reaping the benefits most of that capability. Sek, there is no single definitive statement to make about outrageous integer benchmarks without mentioning which BOINC client version you are talking about. I have used many versions of the Linux client and I have looked at claimed credits for even more thanks to wingmen's Result Logs: one can find anything from strongly underclaiming in some older versions (5 or older) to "very generous" as for the new current "official" Ubuntu version, i.e. 6.10.17. Anyway if there is a single project for which a higher integer benchmark is not shocking it is precisely HCC which is literally "flying" under Linux 64-bit. In fact when I think of it, the only outrageous thing (or strange to be more reasonable) is that every version of the BOINC client for Linux seems to have its own benchmark, without any apparent correlation between them.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
win 7 64 bit finishing at 1.78 to 1.85
----------------------------------------boinc 6.10.52 [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at May 9, 2010 11:24:20 AM] |
||
|
|
therealjcool
Cruncher Joined: Feb 22, 2008 Post Count: 10 Status: Offline |
I am just now installing Ubuntu 10.04 x64 to a test machine (Core i7 980X) to compare the HCC runtimes. I really am wondering why Linux seems to be so much faster here.. my entire farm is running on Windows, so it's going to be a huge PITA to switch them all to Linux (especially since I've never used any Linux distro before, other than Knoppix maybe).
----------------------------------------Or is there maybe another code update coming to close the gap between Win7 x64 and Ubuntu x64? Thanks! |
||
|
|
Randzo
Senior Cruncher Slovakia Joined: Jan 10, 2008 Post Count: 339 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I installed ubunty 10.4 lucid lynx on old test notebook (Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83 GHz,Yonah) few days ago. Only 32b because it doesn`t support 64b. But HCC do miracles it runs only about 2 hours.
And i think there will be no code update soon. And i assume that linux ich much faster due to his memory handling algorithms. |
||
|
|
|